Baselworld is only a few weeks away. Getting the latest news is easy, Click Here for info on how to join the Watchuseek.com newsletter list. Follow our team for updates featuring event coverage, new product unveilings, watch industry news & more!

So, forum posts, and no technial information at all then. Not even a photo of the logic board? 100Hz really doesn't count for processing, it does take a conversion to do but its results are undesirable. This was a sort of stopgap before honest to god HD came along in the European market. I'd venture a guess that 100Hz might look a little better on a CRT than on other types of televisions, but I'd be surprised all the same because I have never seen any praise for it, and this is the only feature I see in any Beovision's spec set that stands out. You talk about their tubes as if they are kissed by god for being made in Denmark, then I read that nearly every tube they used was Philips-made, and later, Samsung, because they were even cheaper than the already cheaper (crap) tubes they were purchasing from Philips.

Here is the manual for the Beovision. It is little more than a sound system receiver. The only thing remarkable that I can see about it is that it has SCART with RGB inputs. Something virtually no American can take advantage of, if they happen to know what it is. There's no mention of an "almost 3D" mode in the manual or any marketing materials. And honestly, does their need to be? When your televisions look like this:

I do think that you are trying to appeal to a particular customer. From a lot of your linkage it seems that customer doesn't know what the thing is behind the glitz.

So, forum posts, and no technial information at all then. Not even a photo of the logic board? 100Hz really doesn't count for processing, it does take a conversion to do but its results are undesirable. This was a sort of stopgap before honest to god HD came along in the European market. I'd venture a guess that 100Hz might look a little better on a CRT than on other types of televisions, but I'd be surprised all the same because I have never seen any praise for it, and this is the only feature I see in any Beovision's spec set that stands out. You talk about their tubes as if they are kissed by god for being made in Denmark, then I read that nearly every tube they used was Philips-made, and later, Samsung, because they were even cheaper than the already cheaper (crap) tubes they were purchasing from Philips.

Here is the manual for the Beovision. It is little more than a sound system receiver. The only thing remarkable that I can see about it is that it has SCART with RGB inputs. Something virtually no American can take advantage of, if they happen to know what it is. There's no mention of an "almost 3D" mode in the manual or any marketing materials. And honestly, does their need to be? When your televisions look like this:

I do think that you are trying to appeal to a particular customer. From a lot of your linkage it seems that customer doesn't know what the thing is behind the glitz.

My Loewe Aconda is 100HZ and it has the best picture on a TV I have ever seen. I never said that the tube was made in Denmark on the B&O, I said the TV was assembled there and the processor was made there. The HZ don't matter that much because all the LCDs/LEDs have a 60hz native refresh rate and only achieve higher through processing and other techniques. http://www.cnet.com/news/fake-refresh-rates-is-your-tv-really-120hz/

And on another note, what is wrong with good build quality and beautiful design? As I mentioned higher labor costs also add to higher TV costs and these days the B&O, Loewe and Metz TV's are the only ones that aren't made in China or Mexico and some of the only ones with a good design.

100Hz is crap because it uses an interlaced signal to create it. It isn't anything like going to 480p from 480i. Some sets deinterlace and blur, others linedouble and get blockier. All I can tell you is that any time I've ever come across an experience with 100Hz, someone was looking for a way to do away with it. Oftentimes, it can't be done, so the television is done away with. 120Hz, and now 240Hz on LCD, is even worse, and actually harms the image of a high definition broadcast as it creates its interpolated frames; the only good use of those, is to turn interpolation off and use it to get a sync rate proper with films to eliminate judder.

And there is nothing wrong with build quality or beautiful design. When it happens at the expense of the central purpose of the thing is isn't worthwhile.

According to Wikipedia, the Qualia line was available in the USA, but I think that world wide, the market for an $11,000 television is incredibly small. There are testimonials on this forum from persons who viewed it stating that the image, while nice, still appeared no better than a KV-34XBR910, making me doubt there was a great deal exclusive behind the thing's high price tag. Funky stands and speakers just aren't worth enough to make up the price differential.

Even it if was sold in the U.S., I don't think there were many fortunate souls that would or could spend $11,000 for a 34" CRT.
And yes... before you ask, the actual "viewable" size of the display is 34" using North American standards.

Heck! You could have purchased 2 38" Loewe Acondas or 4 RCA F38310's for $11,000.

According to Wikipedia, the Qualia line was available in the USA, but I think that world wide, the market for an $11,000 television is incredibly small. There are testimonials on this forum from persons who viewed it stating that the image, while nice, still appeared no better than a KV-34XBR910, making me doubt there was a great deal exclusive behind the thing's high price tag. Funky stands and speakers just aren't worth enough to make up the price differential.

I think they were more handcrafted and all made in Japan. They were made to almost the same degree of precision in some ways as their professional and broadcast video monitor series that cost $30,000 for a 32" HD CRT :-)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ratman

Even it if was sold in the U.S., I don't think there were many fortunate souls that would or could spend $11,000 for a 34" CRT.
And yes... before you ask, the actual "viewable" size of the display is 34" using North American standards.

Heck! You could have purchased 2 38" Loewe Acondas or 4 RCA F38310's for $11,000.

Well the thing is it wouldn't sell for that now. For example I could buy a 32" Sony HD Broadcast Monitor BVM-D32 that retailed at over $30,000 new just 10 years ago, for $500-$1000 now and the picture is amazingly stunning. Many color timers, labs, etc... still use them and swear by them as nothing in Plasma and LED monitors gets close to the colour, contrast, and black level reproduction and accuracy they need. OLED is getting there but it's a new technology and has some glitches to work out as well as cost issues.

I think they were more handcrafted and all made in Japan. They were made to almost the same degree of precision in some ways as their professional and broadcast video monitor series that cost $30,000 for a 32" HD CRT :-)

That's great, because I used to own a Sony HDM 2830, probably the single best, highest resolution broadcast monitor they ever made, and I can tell you, I'd not go out of my way to acquire one again because it is honestly no better than the consumer sets. All you are really getting with those is a configurable input with a gaggle of wired remotes configurable for software control of X, Y, Z, captioning and other stuff that bears no moment's care outside of a production studio. Not that it isn't useful, it just isn't useful to you if you aren't actually producing a video. Add in the reality that these things are the same sort of antiques as the consumer sets, and you would actually need the professional features they needed to get one for what they go for now, with the scarcity added to the feature set. You really aren't getting anything that you can use very well for your movies, games, or television viewing and whatnot apart from built-in test patterns, and with as plentiful as an XBR model is you will easily find one sooner.

Quote:

Well the thing is it wouldn't sell for that now. For example I could buy a 32" Sony HD Broadcast Monitor BVM-D32 that retailed at over $30,000 new just 10 years ago, for $500-$1000 now and the picture is amazingly stunning. Many color timers, labs, etc... still use them and swear by them as nothing in Plasma and LED monitors gets close to the colour, contrast, and black level reproduction and accuracy they need. OLED is getting there but it's a new technology and has some glitches to work out as well as cost issues.

But it most likely doesn't exist anywhere for anybody to actually get it at this point. All it appears to have been is some funked-up XBR widescreen tube with a goofy stand and protruding speakers. You might want to cling to the notion that there is somehow an incredible reason that it cost $11,000 MSRP, but the few who witnessed it saw nothing to set it apart simple consumer sets that sold for a fraction of the price, and the thing had vanished before the next model came along. All the PR releases state that the Qualia line was Sony's attempt to push the envelope and bring high tech products to an upscale market, this reads to me that they wanted to push the envelope of your wallet to see how much they could bilk someone into parting with just by delivering something bog standard, gussied up with an appearance that marched right out of a 1970s science fiction b-movie.

Kinda like the B&O line, now that I think about it, so I guess it's easily likely this is just your thing, but honestly, there was only ever one model of the thing, and it was never superceded even by another CRT, Sony and the whole market went LCD the very next year. It's just far too likely anybody who blew eleven thousand George Washingtons on the Qualia CRT imploded the thing with a bb-gun some time around the day they first picked up an iPhone. It's 2004. You can afford an 11,000 dollar television, you want one, and you get one, that simple. What are you going to do when televisions twice its size are available for half (or less) its cost just a few years later? Are you really going to care how that rock leaves your entertainment centre? Magic 8-ball says, "signs point to No."

That's great, because I used to own a Sony HDM 2830, probably the single best, highest resolution broadcast monitor they ever made, and I can tell you, I'd not go out of my way to acquire one again because it is honestly no better than the consumer sets. All you are really getting with those is a configurable input with a gaggle of wired remotes configurable for software control of X, Y, Z, captioning and other stuff that bears no moment's care outside of a production studio. Not that it isn't useful, it just isn't useful to you if you aren't actually producing a video. Add in the reality that these things are the same sort of antiques as the consumer sets, and you would actually need the professional features they needed to get one for what they go for now, with the scarcity added to the feature set. You really aren't getting anything that you can use very well for your movies, games, or television viewing and whatnot apart from built-in test patterns, and with as plentiful as an XBR model is you will easily find one sooner.
But it most likely doesn't exist anywhere for anybody to actually get it at this point. All it appears to have been is some funked-up XBR widescreen tube with a goofy stand and protruding speakers. You might want to cling to the notion that there is somehow an incredible reason that it cost $11,000 MSRP, but the few who witnessed it saw nothing to set it apart simple consumer sets that sold for a fraction of the price, and the thing had vanished before the next model came along. All the PR releases state that the Qualia line was Sony's attempt to push the envelope and bring high tech products to an upscale market, this reads to me that they wanted to push the envelope of your wallet to see how much they could bilk someone into parting with just by delivering something bog standard, gussied up with an appearance that marched right out of a 1970s science fiction b-movie.

Kinda like the B&O line, now that I think about it, so I guess it's easily likely this is just your thing, but honestly, there was only ever one model of the thing, and it was never superceded even by another CRT, Sony and the whole market went LCD the very next year. It's just far too likely anybody who blew eleven thousand George Washingtons on the Qualia CRT imploded the thing with a bb-gun some time around the day they first picked up an iPhone. It's 2004. You can afford an 11,000 dollar television, you want one, and you get one, that simple. What are you going to do when televisions twice its size are available for half (or less) its cost just a few years later? Are you really going to care how that rock leaves your entertainment centre? Magic 8-ball says, "signs point to No."

Well that TV wasn't the only thing in the Qualia line. They released headphones which many people actually did like, and which DID NOT use drivers or anything from another unit as many TV manufacturers do. They also produced an HD projector that was highly praised by many, etc... Many of the products were in fact quite good and were very unique in both design, manufacture and technology. For example the Sony Qualia KDX-46Q005 was LED backlit before that even started getting used in the mainstream by most of the LCD makers. The Projector I mentioned "The first of these expectations
included an exceptionally sharp picture (even by comparison to 35mm film
projected at the same size), as befits Sony¹s new SXRD 1920 x 1080p
three-chip reflective LCos technology. Another was outlandish light output
(I measured 90 foot-lamberts with the bulb in the low mode and a contrast
ratio of over 3000:1!). Finally, fantastic styling (like a Cartier Watch),
as well as a wealth of the usual inputs, including two HDMI (one with
separate L/R audio inputs) and two 1394 firewire four-pin (front and back),
suitable for use with most camcorders, still cameras and video
HDCP-compliant devices like Sony laptops and certain DVD players." HDMI inputs were even new at the time and not many had experimented with that chip technology. So to say that Sony just packaged things in a nice package and sold it off is ludacris. Yes it was all expensive but it was handmade in Japan, not mass produced, and many of the products were top of the line in the day, it's not much difference from the Pioneer Elite Kuro's that cost $10,000 when they came out in that sense, and I respect Sony for putting in the best. It's the same thing they did with the Sony DSC-RX1 camera, yeah it's a $3000 compact camera, but the quality is near SLR quality, it has a 24MP FULL FRAME sensor, 5FPS, an excellent Carl Zeiss lens at F2, and a solid beautifully built body. NOBODY else makes a camera like it, and Sony pushed the envelope with it. This is what I respect about Sony, although I don't like most of their garbage consumer offerings, they do an amazing job sometimes going into these niche products, in which they lose most of their money. They make most of their money from the cheap crap, not this expensive stuff that only a few people will buy.

The same goes with B&O, if you look at their earnings, they are far less than any mass produced consumer company. They make a niche products for few people who can afford to buy it. It's like Lamborghini that practically went bankrupt three times, because they made no money on their cars. So I feel much less ripped off supporting a product that put the best materials, components, and first world labour into their products, than supporting some mass produced, cheaply made product. You can see this all around. Why did the "Uber Receivers" of 10 years ago die out? The Onkyo TX-NR1000, The Sony STR-DA9000ES, The Pioneer 59txi, The Denon 5805, The Yamaha Z9, etc... Those were the last units that cost as much as they did, delivered the amount of power and detail they did, and had that amount of engineering invested. Most of those companies lost money on those units when compared to their cheaper priced ones where they could outsource their manufacturing and use less expensive components and cheaper designs and less power output, etc... But those were the last to truly compete with seperates. None of these high prices items made much money for the manufacturers, so no, they weren't ripping us off. The $500 receiver you buy today is a rip off, more than the $5000 receiver from 10 years ago! They didn't sacrifice anything back then for their TOTL's like they do now.

And NO I can't afford to buy an $11,000 set, but I don't need to. I bought a pair of ADS L1230 Studio Monitors from 1981 for $250 that sound better than most speakers made today that I've heard even in the thousands or tens of thousands of dollars. And I bought my Loewe Aconda for $40 and my XBR960 for $40.... My next TV? Maybe another Loewe Aconda until I find something with a picture I think is better or something that has that color rendition and contrast I am now addicted to. There's no point in spending $1000 on a crappy new TV, when I can get one I think (and MANY ON THIS CRT FORUM think) looks better than most LED's and Plasma's I've seen. It's the same thing with my Pioneer 47tx receiver that I got for $200, or the Concept 4.5 amp I got for free. Is there better? Sure there is, but not for any sane price I can afford. Maybe the best now will be mine in 5-10 years on the used market for pennies :-)

So to say that Sony just packaged things in a nice package and sold it off is ludacris.

No it is not. THIS is Ludacris:

But it isn't ludicrous to say that, either. There was no groundbreaking technological divergence with this CRT. It wasn't doing resolutions higher than the consumer tubes. It wasn't doing faster framerates, with high speed/wider bandwidth connections, etc. It was a fancy tube on a pedestal with, well, ludicrously large speakers. That's about it really.

Quote:

Yes it was all expensive but it was handmade in Japan, not mass produced, and many of the products were top of the line in the day, it's not much difference from the Pioneer Elite Kuro's that cost $10,000 when they came out in that sense, and I respect Sony for putting in the best. It's the same thing they did with the Sony DSC-RX1 camera, yeah it's a $3000 compact camera, but the quality is near SLR quality, it has a 24MP FULL FRAME sensor, 5FPS, an excellent Carl Zeiss lens at F2, and a solid beautifully built body. NOBODY else makes a camera like it, and Sony pushed the envelope with it. This is what I respect about Sony, although I don't like most of their garbage consumer offerings, they do an amazing job sometimes going into these niche products, in which they lose most of their money. They make most of their money from the cheap crap, not this expensive stuff that only a few people will buy.

Some Qualia products are brand new while others are upgraded and rebranded versions of regular Sony products.

For that matter, nothing in there about "hand made." I'd love to see someone try to make a CRT "by hand," btw, and market it for $11,000. I mean, I've seen hand made CRTs. They're the size of a small soda or wine bottle. There is honestly no chance that the Qualia 015 did not see time in a factory and machining of some sort, quite likely extensively. And from all the testimonials I can gather, it is indeed a rebranded XBR. As for the rest, well that has nothing to do with this television.

For that matter, nothing in there about "hand made." I'd love to see someone try to make a CRT "by hand," btw, and market it for $11,000. I mean, I've seen hand made CRTs. They're the size of a small soda or wine bottle. There is honestly no chance that the Qualia 015 did not see time in a factory and machining of some sort, quite likely extensively. And from all the testimonials I can gather, it is indeed a rebranded XBR. As for the rest, well that has nothing to do with this television.

I don't see how the Wiki disagrees with me. I read it before and there is almost no information about what the models actually have as far as specs or how they were made. I'm sure the Qualia tube is not handmade, but I mean the TV is hand assembled, like many are and they use a lacquered frame and are made in Japan, etc... All that adds to the cost of the TV. Is that justifiable? Not to most, no. But regardles of this CRT, maybe it wasn't worth the cost, my point is that build quality, design, materials used, etc... do cost the company money and therefore that translates to the cost to the consumer. For example B&O pays their factory workers in Denmark, some of the highest factory wages in the world, the average wages for factory workers are around $50 an hour there. So OF COURSE they will cost more than the $3 an hour they pay in the Maquilla's in Mexico (from which there aren't any import duties as well due to NAFTA) or $1.68 an hour they pay in China, etc... That and the materials used for the TV, the higher end components, etc... Of course they make money off of it, as any company should, but they don't make nearly as much as most consumer set makers, and they've been near bankruptcy a lot, which is why they've had to outsource their lower end "Play" stereos which are crap and have been manufacturing aluminium for cars and their own plastics, etc...

Why argue?
I doubt that many were sold. It's a just (another) Sony CRT that had a high retail price tag (It's expensive, so it must be good mentality). So, if you can find one...
a) it's still in use by the original owner who will never part with it.
b) if an owner is willing to part with it, shipping will cost more than the value. (Or it's dying/dead and repair would be unreasonable cost)

Well, the part about the Qualia line being rebadged versions of their consumer products. Being that Sony was already at the top of the television manufacturing arena, what technology do you believe was in the Qualia, but not in the XBR line, or for that matter, not in the production video monitor line to make it so special? The broadcast monitor line did not have any higher physically resolvable resolution than the XBR line, and every testimonial I see of viewing the Qualia puts it in XBR territory. For that matter, what technology would Sony create for the Qualia, only to abandon entirely so soon? The onus is on you to provide evidence. You have none. Just a gut feeling that "hand made parts" are higher in quality. Typically in electronics the situation is reversed. Some guy sitting at a table putting stuff together screws up and makes mistakes more often than a robot assembly line. Looking at the list of Qualia products, the most likely rebadge is absolutely their Trinitron televisions, probably the projectors as well. They just wouldn't go through the time consuming process of completely new technology engineering for an $11,000 that they sold a handful of times then abandon it.

Quote:

I read it before and there is almost no information about what the models actually have as far as specs or how they were made.

It states quite flatly that much of the Qualia line is simply a rebadged effort of their consumer models. I put it to you, with testimonials that the Qualia has an image no better in appearance than the XBR line, that it is an XBR tube, made in the same way, surrounded by a fancy pair of speakers on a funky grey stand. Unlike your assertion that it is just plain superior because it was put to the market at an MSRP of $11,000, I base my opinion on actual evidence--people see the thing in a Sony showroom and it looks no better than the KV-34XBR910, the then-current consumer model at the time, they have in their living room, selling for literally a fraction of its price, without the "beautiful design" of the Qualia. Seriously, just look at this picture.
I think that all by itself speaks volumes to what they were trying to achieve. Looks like it worked. You really believe that this thing is some kind of gold.

Quote:

I mean the TV is hand assembled, like many are and they use a lacquered frame and are made in Japan, etc.

You say this as if it isn't possible to make a beautiful, pleasing design outside of an assembly line.

Quote:

All that adds to the cost of the TV. Is that justifiable? Not to most, no. But regardles of this CRT, maybe it wasn't worth the cost, my point is that build quality, design, materials used, etc... do cost the company money and therefore that translates to the cost to the consumer.

Sony stated many times that this television wasn't just for "the consumer." Look at the douchebag standing in front of that TV. Just look at him. That is who this TV is for. Look at the TV in the photo. Just look at it. Enough testimonial exists to show that it doesn't have some wonderful technology creating an actual image that is more beautiful than its cousins, with their pricetags of a mere $2499. This thing existed because a black casing made to appear like something from Star Trek made it look distinct from their existing, curvy consumer model. It is made FOR THE LOOKS, and in a device where your eyes are meant to be focused in one place, that is a problem. Particularly when you want to blow it out at $11,000. If you are still convinced it has to be inherently superior to anything that mere mortals were able to purchase (even though this thing cost $11,000, you had to purchase it directly from Sony--best buy et al. just didn't have the shelf space for such an expensive television that would only ever sit around), please, don't rest until you find one. Leave no stone unturned, travel to Japan, meditate, do whatever is necessary to achieve television nirvana, then take some high resolution screenshots to share with us. I'd love to see how a hand made cabinet with external speakers makes for an inherently superior image from a Trinitron screen that Sony had been notorious for improving upon for nigh forty years in televisions made for the plebeians.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ratman

Why argue?

Well, you got me there. I guess I just can't wrap my head around the notion that something with a "hand made cabinet" is going to have inherently better technology inside the tube. If he can put something up that substantiates that I'd be all over it myself, hell, he might have to fight me for the last remaining Qualia 015 on the planet.

Well, the part about the Qualia line being rebadged versions of their consumer products. Being that Sony was already at the top of the television manufacturing arena, what technology do you believe was in the Qualia, but not in the XBR line, or for that matter, not in the production video monitor line to make it so special?

"Sony Qualia 015

The 015 is a 36-inch monitor in which Sony uses thermal transfer films that were printed by laminating the color filter and phosphorus to allow the monitor to thermally transfer pictures directly to the glass of the CRT's front panel."

You can translate this page in Google if you like: http://www.sony.jp/CorporateCruise/Press/200306/03-0610D/ It also has pictures of how that technology works. So NO it wasn't just a rebadge. Whether this technology changes the picture quality is up to the beholder, how it's set up and callibrated, etc... I'm sure this technology wasn't cheap. Also it looks like it can accept 1125i, which was probably standard in Japan but not here. Not sure how many lines of resolution it actually had.

Anyway, I remember reading all about this, so I didn't just take it out of thin air. You have many assumptions without checking the technology or facts behind them. I already mentioned that the Qualia projector and rear projection TV used a new type of Lcos CCD chip that hadn't been used before in consumer devices and that it had inputs and technology for 2003 that were quite new as even full HD was rare then (most projectors and TV's being sold were 720p or 1080i at the time). So the projector and rear projector TV definately were not like anything Sony had at the time and was not rebadged either.

And I never said that hand assembly or lacquered panels or any of that would make the picture quality better, but it DOES add to the cost of production, which was my point of why it would cost more.

The 015 is a 36-inch monitor in which Sony uses thermal transfer films that were printed by laminating the color filter and phosphorus to allow the monitor to thermally transfer pictures directly to the glass of the CRT's front panel."

You can translate this page in Google if you like: http://www.sony.jp/CorporateCruise/Press/200306/03-0610D/ It also has pictures of how that technology works. So NO it wasn't just a rebadge. Whether this technology changes the picture quality is up to the beholder, how it's set up and callibrated, etc... I'm sure this technology wasn't cheap. Also it looks like it can accept 1125i, which was probably standard in Japan but not here. Not sure how many lines of resolution it actually had.

If you remove the frame from any of Sony'x 34" XBR line of CRTs, you will find the face of a flat tube that will measure... 36", corner to corner. The 36" size that Sony is quoting is precisely this. With the hand made bezel on the thing that you love so much in place, your screen size will measure only 34". As for "thermally transferring pictures directly to the glass of the CRTs front panel," this is well meaningless jargon that appears to have been written by a person who has no understanding of how a CRT functions. It is either not a CRT, in which case this puzzling sentence takes on the meaning of some entirely different display technology made only for Qualia and never used again, or it forms its image by way of electrons beamed at the glass causing phosphors to glow--JUST LIKE ANY OTHER CRT.

When I run the link you provided through the translator, I see these words:

Quote:

super fine pitch FD Trinitron tube

If we aren't more clear, they are stating that this is what the Qualia 015 is. If we bother to consult wikipedia, we can easily learn exactly what a super fine pitch FD Trinitron tube actually is. We can also see a long list of various HDTV CRTs which already have this rare and sought-after technology. So, let's read on to try and determine what additional technology exists in the Qualia 015 that mortal man has never beheld.

Quote:

With thermal transfer directly to the front panel glass of cathode-ray tube was printed in layers color filter and phosphor, thermal transfer film of the newly developed "Fine Image Transfer Film", and that it formed at the same time the color filter and the phosphor screen, and developed a completely new process have.

I love Japanese. I don't speak one word of it but I've waded through a lot of it over the years, translated by way of my crappy abilities with a couple of dictionaries, and much assisted with machine translation since babelfish. And I can tell you that "Fine Image Transfer Film" is not anything that actually delivers an image to you on a CRT screen. I don't need Japanese fluency to know this about CRT technology. So again, this is either some entirely new and completely different kind of display, or it is a CRT. On this very page, they state quite flatly that it is a CRT, and moreover, a super fine pitch FD Trinitron tube, in other words, exactly what we know to be in many a consumer-level XBR television from the era. So what exactly is this "Transfer Film?" I think I can answer that question for you quite simply, and particularly so when they mention how it is "thermal transfer film."

There it is. This is the "thermal transfer film." That's the film that Sony created in order to protect the glass face of their flat CRTs, and to prevent overhead glare. Why thermal? What's that all about? Well how do you think they bond it to the glass? If you'll bother to search this forum you will find many a thread from a dissatisfied Sony XBR owner--because the anti-glare film can separate from the glass over time, or dull, harden, develop a cataract and other undesirabilities. It looks great when it's new, but does dim the image a bit. As you can imagine, this becomes a bigger problem as the television and its phosphors age... for all sorts of reasons.

If on the other hand, you have some kind of evidence that the "film transfer technology" used in this television is different from this, please provide it to us. However, as the Sony product page does state this to be a super fine pitch FD Trinitron tube, and those exist quite well in the wild outside your high estate walls, I think that the precedent for what this film technology must be is clear, mangled as it may be from machine translated Japanese.

Quote:

Anyway, I remember reading all about this, so I didn't just take it out of thin air.

You didn't connect the dots, unfortunately.

Quote:

You have many assumptions without checking the technology or facts behind them.

And to think that I have you to thank for what appears to be a quite definitive statement on what the actual facts are. Thanks a lot, now I know my assumptions are completely correct.

Quote:

I already mentioned that the Qualia projector and rear projection TV used a new type of Lcos CCD chip that hadn't been used before in consumer devices and that it had inputs and technology for 2003 that were quite new as even full HD was rare then (most projectors and TV's being sold were 720p or 1080i at the time). So the projector and rear projector TV definately were not like anything Sony had at the time and was not rebadged either.

But as we can now see, the Qualia 015 certainly is a rebadged XBR.

Quote:

And I never said that hand assembly or lacquered panels or any of that would make the picture quality better, but it DOES add to the cost of production, which was my point of why it would cost more.

Why don't you just get any CRT with an acceptable enough image, then rent out a shop to work some metal, wood, etc. and make your own case if that is really such a huge deal? NONE of that stuff makes the picture quality better, but it seems that just isn't as important to you.

Also it looks like it can accept 1125i, which was probably standard in Japan but not here. Not sure how many lines of resolution it actually had.

I've done this and various other-than-standard resolutions on several XBR, Samsungs, and LG HDTV CRTs through the years. It has a great deal more to do with the video circuit than the tube, and any XBR with a super fine pitch tube can physically beam as high as you can see in the wiki link.

I don't think I could get myself to spend $500-$1000 for a 10 year old heavy-ass TV that is only around 34" 1080i max. and missing who knows what else in this modern day&age, even if it does have stellar PQ and Ferrari quality.

Yep. Makes me wonder how Best Buy treats these widescreens since they state 32" max. for free recycle drop-off (I'm assuming they're referring to 4:3 sets). But the last time I dropped off some TVs nobody even checked, a young gal said just wheel it over there. Of course there's always free city recycling.

Now I'd take one of these gems for free if a good-working set, especially if delivered. But who's gonna deliver it for free?

I don't think I could get myself to spend $500-$1000 for a 10 year old heavy-ass TV that is only around 34" 1080i max. and missing who knows what else in this modern day&age, even if it does have stellar PQ and Ferrari quality.

I wouldn't either, but I bought both the Loewe Aconda and Sony XBR 960 for $40 each and had my dad deliver them The Loewe lasted a year, the XBR is still running fine and might last a few years more. The Loewe for sure had the PQ and Ferrari Build/Looks and for $40 I can't complain, even for $200 I wouldn't. I don't need modern day features on my actual TV, I get Netflix, Youtube, and the rest from my Bluray player hooked up via component, for playing files and things I use HDMI on the XBR or VGA on the Loewe and the picture is stunning when playing Bluerays via Component.

I don't care that it's heavy, I don't move every month, and once I place it and it lasts for a few years, then wheeling a TV in and "lifting it onto the stand" every few years is nothing, people do this for a living every single day. Also my living room is small, I sit only a few feet away from my TV, so 34" is actually quite big. I think it's ridiculously stupid to pay even $1000 for a mediocre "brand new" TV or $10,000 for an amazing TOTL TV as it will be worth about $40 again in 10 years time and even most of the TVs in the thousands these days still don't have the black levels or colours that the Loewe Aconda had. So I don't see ANY reason to get a modern TV for "modern features" when we have wifi connected bluerays, PS3s, Wii's, and set top boxes that can all be hooked up via component for Loewe or HDMI for the XBR

I see. I scanned the bottom of post #67 too fast. I'm currently in the same boat, happy with my Panny version of one of these although I wish it had HDMI or at least DVI. Got it for free but at the cost of a small hernia . And my living room is set up close to the TV as well and it's mostly just me (thanks Lazy Boy!). Too bad that $25 Aconda that appeared to be in great shape came about right after acquiring the Panny (the curved vs. flat screen didn't help either although I didn't know the PQ was supposed to be so great until your posting here).

I see. I scanned the bottom of post #67 too fast. I'm currently in the same boat, happy with my Panny version of one of these although I wish it had HDMI or at least DVI. Got it for free but at the cost of a small hernia . And my living room is set up close to the TV as well and it's mostly just me (thanks Lazy Boy!). Too bad that $25 Aconda that appeared to be in great shape came about right after acquiring the Panny (the curved vs. flat screen didn't help either although I didn't know the PQ was supposed to be so great until your posting here).

The curved screen is one of the reasons I got the 30" Aconda instead of the 38" Aconda. It has the Philips Tube in it instead of the RCA and is flat with hardly any reflections. The curved screen on the 38" would bother me a little as well...

Yep that's it! Since it doesn't have a built-in HD tuner I could use another component input for my Sony Blu-ray, although I don't Blu-ray much but would be nice to use the Sony for DVD playback (assuming it's any better than my Toshiba HDD/DVDR). Fantastic 'TV set' sound. Somewhere else I thought it stated 5 speakers; appears to be 3 in the front and two on the side unless a couple like possibly the side ports are just 'ported.' I know I can menu affects that make various ones turn on/off. I did have to buy an OEM remote off eBay though for $15, too many unique functions (my first pain was that I couldn't change the aspect ratio and the input port display box was stuck on). That "Made in Japan" was a bonus surprise when I first saw it - funny how times have changed (BTW I heard those old Made in Japan gadgets and such from way back are collectibles now).

Yeah it was the 38" Aconda. I never knew there was a smaller flat Aconda until you mentioned it here.

Yep that's it! Since it doesn't have a built-in HD tuner I could use another component input for my Sony Blu-ray, although I don't Blu-ray much but would be nice to use the Sony for DVD playback (assuming it's any better than my Toshiba HDD/DVDR). Fantastic 'TV set' sound. Somewhere else I thought it stated 5 speakers; appears to be 3 in the front and two on the side unless a couple like possibly the side ports are just 'ported.' I know I can menu affects that make various ones turn on/off. I did have to buy an OEM remote off eBay though for $15, too many unique functions (my first pain was that I couldn't change the aspect ratio and the input port display box was stuck on). That "Made in Japan" was a bonus surprise when I first saw it - funny how times have changed (BTW I heard those old Made in Japan gadgets and such from way back are collectibles now).

Yeah it was the 38" Aconda. I never knew there was a smaller flat Aconda until you mentioned it here.

You're really making me wonder how this compares to my XBR960 now! Wish I could see them side by side. I imagine the Loewe would still have the edge in terms of colour but this looks like quite a cool set!

Yeah I like it. I've yet to witness any of the others in action but... There's not a lot of info on these Pannys so hard to say on comparison reviews. I know this model MSRP'ed for nearly 5 grand at the time., although I suspect many were around this price back then.

There were more recent models with HDMI and maybe a built-in ATSC tuner. I know there was a 54, don't know after that. Another AVS poster has/had the 54 and loved it, maybe even better sound (I think BBE).

I could stand to fine tune mine but I haven't got around to messing with the service adjustments. It's not like the Sony's where there's a plethora of info so I'm a little apprehensive. I sort of 'figured out' how to access the service menu by goofing around based on what little info I could find on other Pannys. I documented what I found and each setting, of course much of it is cryptic. Probably worth buying a service manual if it has this detail (also hard to tell). If you ever acquire one of these Pannys let me know and I'll share my findings if you need it.

Mine was 'mintish' as far as I could tell BUT it was shipped around the states from time to time. It was a Kenwood car audio distributor set used for demos, marketing venues, etc. It spent a lot of time on a warehouse shelf. My buddy that works there said Kenwood California didn't want it back so now it's mine (I'm sure a flat panel this size became much more cost-effective to ship). The biggest problem is one of the corners is off-colored from the rest (they could all use some fine-tuning); that's on a side that has a crack in the plastic case. I stuck some old TV ferrite pieces on the plastic around that corner to improve it (I haven't ventured to take the multitude of screws out and remove the cover - assuming the cover will slide off without having to move the set ). Geometry slightly off in those areas too. But you know over time I hardly notice this stuff unless I'm looking for it. (well 34" isn't very big). Admittedly the one corner bothers me more because it's pinkish while the other corners are bluish, contrasting plus the blue is less noticeable in most scenes (i.e. some folks like to turn their whites/color temp up a little bluish).

I found some Calida and Planus TV's for sale but how do they compare to the Aconda or later Articos? It seems they are all 1080i with the updated Chassis. Is it just looks or do they have different tubes and processors? Will the later Articos CRT give better image quality than the Aconda and will the Aconda give better image qualiy than the Calida/Planus?

The only Calida information I have ever seen show that they are 4:3, and standard definition. Are you getting hard up? The Planus is 16:9, but it is only 100Hz, i.e. not high definition. This is also the processing that generally looks like crap on a cracker leaving people scrambling looking for a way to turn it off. It does have SCART so depending on your input it might look okay, but I wouldn't get your hopes up.